This is an archive of past discussions with User:AnemoneProjectors. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
"Arthur was conceived from a one-night stand with a man that Stacey met before she started dating Martin Fowler (James Bye). When Stacey finds out that she is pregnant, she tells Martin that he is the father but hides her baby scans from him."
Uh, when was it said that she had a one-night-stand with a random man before she started to date Martin? The story so far is that Kush and Stacey had an offscreen one-night-stand and then she began sleeping with Martin and that either Kush or Martin could be the father (but the media points to it being Kush). Where did this man come from? Arjoccolenty (talk) 23:29, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
@Arjoccolenty: Because Stacey told Shabnam that Kush isn't the father, other editors have decided that we cannot say Kush is the father, and therefore Stacey must have had a one-night stand with someone else. I reverted this a few times to say Kush is the father (because I read somewhere that Stacey thinks God is the father and clearly God isn't the father, it's Kush) but apparently it's ambiguous. It probably requires discussion. AnemoneProjectors07:52, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
EastEnders episodes
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Hi AP, glad that I could collaborate with you on the EastEnders episodes. Just wondering if I should add a note to episodes that are featuring: a character joining, leaving, recast etc. or one-hour episodes or if the episode is aired on BBC2. Just a simple: Note: This episode aired for one hour or a Note: The episode featured the departure of Emma Summerhayes (Anna Acton). Thanks - Soaper1234 (talk) 22:07, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
No need to add the length as User:RachelRice added a column for it (see User:RachelRice/List of EastEnders episodes (2015)#January (1 January was 65 minutes)). For BBC2 broadcasts, this year there haven't been any but in my previous drafts, see User:AnemoneProjectors/List of EastEnders episodes (2014)#July, I've added it in the text. No need for the word "note" and especially not for bold. I always added "real world" information about episodes at the start of the episode summary, such as 3 July 2014, "One hour (double) episode, originally scheduled for broadcast as two episodes on 1 and 3 July, but the 1 July episode was postponed due to the World Cup" with reference. Also, in User:AnemoneProjectors/List of EastEnders episodes (2013), someone else added text for me like "Dexter Hartman arrives", to signify it was the first episode, however, when I added the episode summary, I removed that and added storylines that made it clear that character arrives in that episode. But in the 2015 page, User:RachelRice has said "Last appearance of Khali Best as Dexter Hartman and Anna Acton as DC Emma Summerhayes." I don't think there's anything you need to do in any of these respects, to be honest. AnemoneProjectors22:20, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi again, continuing my work on User:AnemoneProjectors/List of EastEnders episodes (2013) and I thought if an episode is 60 minutes, but not two episodes merged into one (i.e. there is three episodes in the week, with one of them a 60 minute - effectively making it four regular episodes), would that class as an episode that would have a 4560-01 number or would it just be 4560? Also, if the case is that it remains with a 4560-01, would the second number be 1-2 or 1? Thanks, Soaper1234 (talk) 15:02, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Has that ever actually happened? We need to make sure the episode numbers all follow on correctly, the 2013 list has all its numbers, and follows on from the 2012 list. If in doubt, try to find the episode number online. Channel 5 used to have them in their soaps, which is where I originally took them from, then it was tvtv or something like that but that site ended, so now it's just down to Radio Times, and Digital Spy has started publishing them too. But the number for 4560/01 is correct - are you thinking of a different episode or wondering if it might come up in the future? (By the way, I used '/' not '-' because this is how they were listed on one of the websites that no longer list them.) AnemoneProjectors16:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
By the way, if you Google the episode number, such as "eastenders episode 4562", you should get a matching Radio Times page. It won't give the date of the episode, but you could compare the credits to the BBC. Also check the history of the 2013 page you are editing - you removed hidden comments with RT refs that included WebCite archives I had done to preserve the page with the episode number and date intact. From http://www.webcitation.org/6D84Q9V4c you can see that episode 4562 was broadcast on 2 January 2013. Double episodes are not numbered by Radio Times (http://www.webcitation.org/6D84zS0Eq), so if you can't find what you want, it's probably a double-numbered double episode. AnemoneProjectors17:07, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
I originally added refs for episode numbers because I thought they might be needed, but then started hiding them and in the end stopped adding them at all when I figured they weren't going to be necessary. No need to add them back - the history has them if they are needed, but it would be for reference only. I was going to remove them myself at some point. I'm just concerned that if we complete all 31 years, they numbers won't run consistently! AnemoneProjectors18:45, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Guys do you need any help, I am a fan of EastEnders and don't mind helping, episode numbers can confusing but can be found using a variety of sources including VT Clock Card. They are hard to find here is an example of Episode 4693 that aired on 19 August 2013.
Help is only needed with older ones, I think Soaper is working through them really well though. I have 4693 as 16 August 2013, though. AnemoneProjectors22:35, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Oh also, Soaper1234 - double episodes should be with a / not a - thought I'm not sure where Rachel got the - from. I got the / from a reliable source that no longer exists and kept it consistent. Again, something that didn't need changing. But when there's a double episode, the number-in-year number only increases by one, as the episode numbers do not necessarily match the number of episodes. So 3 January 2013 is the 2nd episode that year, for the purporses of that article, and then the infobox says 204 episodes (which it did before), and not 217 (which it does now). AnemoneProjectors22:43, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Sorry about that AP. I removed your episode summaries because I was going to add new ones, but I could just edit out the links and that would make it easier. I've been a tad unavailable recently, but should be back getting on with the episode lists soon. I really trying to work with 2013, then I'll move to 2014 and 2012. I'll change the '-' to '/' and I was just using Rachel's list as a template, hence following that rule. Why is it a double episode with the overall numbers, but not in the year? Sorry if I have done anything incorrect and please let me know if there is anything else. :) Soaper1234 (talk) 17:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
@Soaper1234: Sorry if I came across a bit moody before! :-) I would prefer it if you just edited my existing episode summaries rather than remove them and start again. The difference between - and / probably doesn't matter that much but I've only seen / used elsewhere. I did say that all pages should follow Rachel's 2015 format, so I can understand the change. I did mean to add "with minor changes"! I think with double episodes, it was just something I decided... perhaps because they're produced as two episodes but broadcast as one, so episode number (for example) 5555/56 could be episode 23 in the year and episode 5557 could be 24 in the year. Maybe I am wrong, which means I will also need to make updates. Actually, Rachel did do the same as me in the 2015 page, I think, unless it was me! I'm looking at March 2015. What do you think? AnemoneProjectors17:23, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Actually, I think my way might be better in that when it says "The following is a full list of the EastEnders 2016 cast, followed by their respective episode count out of 15 total episodes", if there had been double epiosdes, it wouldn't match up if we counted them as two episodes.. for example if there was a double and someone was in both parts, they would only be counted as being in one. So that way, the appearances can match up. I say we count the number of individual broadcasts as the "number in year", but the overall number is based on EastEnders numbering itself. AnemoneProjectors17:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
We are now going with dark blue, unsortable, so any that are light blue should be changed. I originally had them sortable because I wasn't going to put summaries in, but then I started eventually doing that, and that doesn't work with sorting - so any writers or directors with {{sortname}} don't need that template anymore either. I started with the lighter shade to be consistent with the infobox but User:RachelRice went with a darker one, which I've now adopted. AnemoneProjectors20:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
@Soaper1234 and Kelvin 101: just wanted to point out if you're doing older episodes, if there are no episodes that aren't 30 minutes long, then the running time column isn't needed, you can just say somewhere in the article that all episodes are 30 minutes. AnemoneProjectors10:43, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Wow, that BBC Genome looks very helpful! As it's from Radio Times, I'm assuming the credits won't be complete - the first episode is on the official EastEnders website, but I think it's under 2010, when it was shown that year.
Oh, you asked about refs? Which refs are these? Have a look at the 2016 draft - at the top of the episode list it says "All official ratings are taken from the Broadcasters' Audience Research Board (BARB).[12] Airdates, credits, running times and episode summaries are taken from the official EastEnders website.[13] Episode numbers are taken from the Radio Times.[14]" so if you have a general ref like that, you can put it in text that way. AnemoneProjectors16:05, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
@Kelvin 101: I'm not sure what the point of the template page is, it seems to only be of use with the 1986 article - I thought it would be something that could quickly be transcribed on all pages. AnemoneProjectors18:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
I was really thinking something we could just copy and paste and change the year/add relevant information. It's probably a bad idea. Thanks Kelvin 101 (talk) 18:59, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
@Kelvin 101 and Soaper1234: What do you guys think about adding a reception section? For general reception of that year's storylines? Might be difficult for older ones but easlier for 2016. Or could it end up with too much? AnemoneProjectors16:59, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
That's not reception but good to put as an external link in the 2008 page. I doubt they did it again since - Kris Green did that one and he now works for EastEnders. AnemoneProjectors19:39, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
The Christmas 1986 episode were Den gives Angie the divorce papers, need to work out which part. He actually gives her the papers. Will try and research. Thanks Kelvin 101 (talk) 23:42, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Maybe the ratings are for both. But do these help? [1][2]? Probably not. I'd say both combined, as there's never been any reference to it being one or the other, and if one episode was in the top 10, you'd expect the other one to be as well! AnemoneProjectors23:46, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Yeah that make sense now, is there a way to combine the two ratings rows for part 1 and 2 so it reads 30.15 (combined), the way I normally do it does not seem to work with this type of table. Thanks Kelvin 101 (talk) 00:20, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
@Kelvin 101: Usually the director does the entire block of a week's worth of episodes, so in 1987 it would be two episodes. If you can't find a source to confirm this though, leave it blank. AnemoneProjectors17:13, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
I have created a discussion area on User:AnemoneProjectors/List of EastEnders episodes rather than here. I have left the discussion hidden here as it is up to AP to remove it, but just felt it was easier to use on the episode list.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Quick Question
Hello! My name is MultiStorey (AKA Kit0804) I'm the admin of the Hollyoaks Wiki. And I feel it's time to fish in bigger ponds (so to speak). My question to you is a very basic one, but as I am not one who edits as such (I've just started) I feel it prudent to start a few pages concerning Hollyoaks that ought to be created. And without knowing how to do that...you can see my point. How do you create page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MultiStorey (talk • contribs)
@MultiStorey: Oh hi there, welcome to Wikipedia! A guideline to writing your first article can be found here: Wikipedia:Your first article. I'm assuming that you're experienced with Wikis, so you should find it quite simple. Basically, you first need to search for the article title. If it doesn't exist, you'll be provided with a red link that you can edit. If it does exist, but is a redirect (such as Jason Roscoe), then when you are redirected there, the top of the page you are sent to will provide a link in the form of "Redirected from Jason Roscoe". Click on the blue text and it'll give you the page to edit. If you need any more help, just ask and I'll try my best to answer! AnemoneProjectors16:08, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation redirects
In your edit of 09:34, 21 January 2016 of Ben Cartwright, you moved the link from Bonanza in the description to Ben Cartwright (character) in the entry name, after I had moved the links the opposite way in the preceding edit. Your edit summary was "redirects are meant to be used in dab pages, especially where the redirect title is the ambiguous term". For authority on this issue, we have WP:DABREDIR. Under the heading "Where redirecting may be appropriate", there are four bullet points:
A redirect should be used to link to a specific section of an article if the title of that section is more or less synonymous with the disambiguated topic. This indicates a higher possibility that the topic may eventually have its own article ...
Linking to a redirect can also be helpful when both:
the redirect target article contains the disambiguated term; and
the redirect could serve as an alternative name for the target article, meaning an alternative term that is already in the article's lead section.
[The redirect target article Bonanza does contain the disambiguated term "Ben Cartwright". But the redirect ("Ben Cartwright") could not plausibly serve as an alternative name for the target article Bonanza, and "Ben Cartwright" does not appear in the lead section of Bonanza.]
@Anomalocaris: Perhaps I understood or remembered the guidelines wrong, I was under the impression that we used redirects in dab pages where they are available. However, is the dab page really needed at Ben Cartwright? Should the actor not be at that location with a hatnote linking to Bonanza? AnemoneProjectors09:08, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
I would guess that most Americans old enough to have seen Bonanza when it was originally broadcast would think of Bonanza's Ben Cartwright as the primary Ben Cartwright. I would guess that most Americans have never heard of the British actor. If the British actor becomes sufficiently famous internationally, and no other Wikipedia-worthy Ben Cartwrights appear, your question could be revisited. Meanwhile, I think the disambiguation page is still needed. —Anomalocaris (talk) 09:54, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
That's fair enough. I just thought, since the actor has an independent article and the character doesn't... but I'll leave you to it for now :-) AnemoneProjectors20:45, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
January 2016
Hello, AnemoneProjectors. Just wanted to let you know, for the first four seasons of The X Factor UK, the solo singers only went by their first names. Linguist111 (talk) 17:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
@Grangehilllover: Good question. It's information about a character that is from a "real-world perspective" and not an "in-universe perspective". In-universe is the storylines, real-world is stuff like what the actor has said about playing the character, how the character has been described, how the character was cast, reviewer opinions about the character, that kind of stuff - stuff that goes in a "development" section, rather than a "storylines one". So if you look at List of EastEnders characters (2016), Sophie has a line of praise, Tim has an actor quote, Linzi has some information about her relationship with Jay, and Linford has some quotes as well. But all JJ has is what happened in the episode. Does that makes sense? WP:WAF might help as well. AnemoneProjectors16:56, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
You know the Draft:Amy-Leigh Hickman I've been working on? Well, I submitted it again a while ago, but I've been waiting ages for a response back. I was wondering if it was at all possible if you could move it into Amy-Leigh Hickman and unlock the page perhaps?
Also, I know you've done it with EastEnders pages, on Coronation Street and Emmerdale pages, should the words née, né and previously go and be replaced with also too? And notes in infoboxes about birth names and married names. I've done a couple, but I wanted to ask.
@Grangehilllover: I could move it, I don't know if I should because I've worked on it but I do think the article now meets notability. I've not got involved with reviewing drafts before. Perhaps, as User:SwisterTwister reviewed it before, you could see if they'll review it again. I don't know why it's taken so long.
Yes I do believe that "née/né" and "previously" should be removed from all fictional subjects - as long as you understand why. I also prefer to remove names from the lead if they haven't been credited, which is why, for example, the name Pat Beale isn't used for Pat Butcher. Notes in infoboxes.. do you mean adding (married name)? I don't think it's necessary to include that in the infobox, but doesn't do any harm really. The other thing I want to do is remove in-universe dates from infoboxes, so years for marriages, stepparents, etc, but that'll be a struggle to get people to agree, even though there are so many reasons to remove them - there's a discussion on the infobox talk page if you're interested. AnemoneProjectors12:40, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi,
Thanks. I'll give SwisterTwister a bit longer and then message them again later. I actually agree with the whole name thing where only credited name thing to make things less cluttered With the years, I understand why they shouldn't be used because you can easily watch an episode now where Pete and Kathy are married to one where they have split up. But if the years were gone from the infobox, would be OK to mention when they got married or divorced in the article it's self?
Such as:
Kathy married Phil in January 1995...in April 1998, Kathy left Walford with Ben to live in South Africa. They were divorced in ???? 1999 (not too sure of the month)
I don't know if you get what I mean and some articles may do it already, but there would need to be some sort of guidance for readers.
Hi @Grangehilllover: I tend to remove dates from storylines sections too for the same reason, and if there's a gap, I just say X months or years later. So I'd be against saying in that section when a character marries, though it could be relevant to development, in which case an episode date could be mentioned in a "real world" section. And I suppose you could say that someone divorced after X years of marriage in the storylines. AnemoneProjectors23:24, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi @Soaper1234: I assume you mean of your talk page. The easiest thing probably is to get a bot to do it but there are other options. See Help:Archiving a talk page. I use a bot, and if you want to do the same, look under the "Automated archival" section for templates you can add to your talk page that will tell the bot what to do. AnemoneProjectors20:14, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Hey, I just saw this: [3] I'm pretty sure this is the same user who targeted my drafts and one of Rain's a few weeks back. Their new thing is adding speedy delete tags to articles they're not happy with. - JuneGloom07Talk18:48, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Really? I haven't seen that yet, I hope nothing has been deleted. I need to finish off Gavin's page asap really, but have been working on other drafts, like local history of where I live and EastEnders episodes! AnemoneProjectors19:29, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
The speedy deletes are never filled out properly, so nothing has gone yet. Rain and I think we just worked out who's behind it all from this delightful message left on his talkpage [4]. - JuneGloom07Talk19:39, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
I do not wish my drafts to be moved, and I already had a discussion with someone who was moving drafts I watch to draftspace, who promised mine and those of other long-standing users would not be moved to draftspace. AnemoneProjectors19:38, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Just to add that this particular page is part of a series of drafts currently being worked on by three or four users and when they are all finished, all 32 of them will be moved, by me, to the mainspace. AnemoneProjectors19:44, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
I've noticed these articles of yours, like User:AnemoneProjects/List of EastEnders episodes (1995), I was wondering if I could add stuff to them, such as episode summaries or guest characters and that?
Hi @Grangehilllover: at the moment, User:Soaper1234 is adding all the cast lists, so that's sorted, and User:Kelvin 101 is working through the pages to add the lists of episodes (with dates and credits where available). Have a look at User:AnemoneProjectors/List of EastEnders episodes, which has at the top, a list of the drafts that have been started. Summaries are not as important as getting full lists of episodes with dates and credits, but if you want to add episode summaries, have a look at the ones marked "without summaries" or "needs more summaries", and you are free to add summaries to them - just make sure they are in your own words, are in present tense, give context (as if you do not know how characters are related or what happened in the previous year) and are concise - as you can probably see, in 2015 and 2016 I am trying to keep them to no more than 4 lines (on my screen at least) and in 2013, I was trying to keep it to 2 lines, but they'll probably be expanded anyway as earlier ones have been written longer than the later ones I added in that year. Once we have all the lists completed (with or without summaries), they'll be moved to mainspace where anyone can edit them anyway. Any questions should be asked at User talk:AnemoneProjectors/List of EastEnders episodes, which is where we are collaborating. Thanks. AnemoneProjectors19:06, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
@Grangehilllover: Hi you don't happen to have any sort of episode lists for EastEnders do you? I remember you mentioned you had quite a few episodes in your collection. Thanks Kelvin 101 (talk) 18:34, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Hadn't known of this "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert." Oh, well. Cebr1979 (talk) 22:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
@Cebr1979: Not to worry, I won't hold it against you. I wish we could work together on this, I don't like all this bad feeling (and I'm not just saying that because you've gone to ANI). AnemoneProjectors22:59, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
I believe you're not just saying that, you are a very polite person. However, you also won't give up regardless of how many editors have told you something. It's only your way and nothing else and you use very odd tactics to ensure that.Cebr1979 (talk) 23:05, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
I know it's incorrect punctuation because I'm a native speaker of English. The comma implies that it's the only American daytime soap opera, which I'm pretty sure it's not. AnemoneProjectors09:57, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
It's actually the lack of a comma that implies it's the one and only American soap opera... but, let's just leave it at that. I mean... We all know that you don't require sources for anything... You say so... therfore it is, right? You're a native speaker of English so... you're non-stop correct, all the time. Uh-huh.Cebr1979 (talk) 10:00, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Having a comma there means you can remove "One Life to Live" and it will still make grammatical sense. Then it would read "Tina Lord is a fictional character from the American daytime soap opera originally (and most notably) portrayed by Andrea Evans". It therefore implies there is only one American daytime soap opera. That sentence still require a comma betewen "opera" and "originally", therefore, there is only one comma required in the sentence. AnemoneProjectors10:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
You have been blocked
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for being an awesome wikipedian. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
According the admin that deleted every revision. But the recreated version was a bad sign. It was too reliant on Digital Spy. Like it was "Actor said [insert DS quote]. It was reported [insert DS quote]. Then [insert DS quote]."Rainthe 117:01, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
I think there are a probably a few articles that might be like that. It's easy to just quote stuff, and it's also very easy to rely on Digital Spy! So it was probably the right call to make. Sometimes a good quote is needed, but in most cases they can be paraphrased! AnemoneProjectors17:09, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
YYYY Done but you must have loads of new articles all the time and Redwater was my first since 2013! And you wrote that in just over a day!!! What?! AnemoneProjectors13:27, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
2013?! What have you being doing all this time? :P I wish I had written it in a day, but I worked on it offline for about a week. I just wrote the lead last night. Thank you! - JuneGloom07Talk13:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure, other than starting the 2016 EE character list, my last new article in the mainspace before Redwater was Mick Carter in December 2013 just before he arrived! I've been mostly doing drafts and getting "the fear". I have 7 that are nearly ready (plus about 2 that need some work and others that are barely started) and I definitely want to move them over SOON!!!!! There are about 16 EastEnders characters I want to have independent articles, so why don't I work on them? Probably because by the time I've reached the end of my watchlist, it's time for bed. I don't know what else I do all day! AnemoneProjectors13:47, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Sharon and Phil
@AnemoneProjectors: Isn't a divorce only finalized in the UK after 6 months from signing the original divorce papers? Surely it hasn't been 6 months yet because that would have had to mean they signed the divorce papers in October. Arjoccolenty (talk) 00:04, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
@Arjoccolenty: (No need to ping me on my own talk page btw) Well they received a decree (either nisi or absolute, they didn't say) in the last episode. It's only been a couple of months, but my feeling is that it was the decree nisi, because once that's arrived, Phil has to wait 6 weeks to apply for the decree absolute, but if he doesn't, Sharon can apply for one after another 3 months, meaning that if it was a decree absolute, the decree nisi would have been received in early March. Sharon signed divorce papers on 22 February 2016, so maybe it's possible... From what Sharon said (i.e the marriage is "practically over", I think she said), it sounds like it was the decree nisi, meaning they are still married, though it looks like EE are trying to let us know the marriage is over. But technically we should probably wait at least another 6 weeks. <anemone>>projectors<08:23, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Shakil or Shaki Kazemi
Hi,
I was looking at the credits for when the character arrives and he is credited as Shakil. Some sources say Shakil and others say Shaki and in the programme, he has been referred to as Shaki. Should Shaki Kazemi be used in his heading and his redirect or Shakil Kazemi.
I just saw the credits as well. I think we should go with the credits, make the section heading Shakil Kazemi, and move the redirect from Shaki Kazemi to Shakil Kazeil (and update the target so both names redirect there). Would you do it? anemoneprojectors11:04, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
No I can really confirm but when I first got into EastEnders in late 2010 and I looked at the profiles, it said they were half-siblings. I have the bad habit of sticking with the first piece of information I read and think that its correct when it might not be. So that's on me. I assume they are half-siblings but if the consensus doesn't feel comfortable with that (and they probably won't), then I won't argue otherwise. :) Arjoccolenty (talk) 15:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Most boyband articles (bar JT and Nick Lachey) use the Infobox musical artist, so what makes Zayn so special? He hasn't achieved anything yet in his brief career to have the infobox person template. If he had a burgeoning acting career, I'd understand, but he hasn't! APM (talk) 17:58, 27 April 2016 (UTC)AmorPatiturMoras
Fair point, but is his engagement really that relevant? Plenty of other musicians have been engaged and didn't get married, so again, what makes Zayn so special? APM (talk) 17:43, 28 April 2016 (UTC)AmorPatiturMoras
@AmorPatiturMoras: Zayn Malik is not special. Do not most notable people have their relationships listed in the infobox if they are with notable people? Most infoboxes for people seem to have been merged into one but the musical artist one hasn't. BLPs about musicians should be treated the same as all other BLPs, in my opinion and I think it's time the musical artist infobox was merged so that all the other parameters can be included - having the ability to embed one infobox into the other is the current workaround. anemoneprojectors19:18, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
I'd have to agree with you on that one. If the musical artist inbox was merged by now, then we wouldn't be having this discussion! APM (talk) 22:32, 28 April 2016 (UTC)AmorPatiturMoras
@AmorPatiturMoras: True. Anyway, I only reverted because the relationship parameter is used - if it's not really that important and the musical artist infobox is preferred, then I'll let you go back to it - but perhaps others might disagree, I don't know. anemoneprojectors09:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
On 7 May 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Redwater (TV series), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the upcoming BBC TV series Redwater is the first major network drama to derive from the soap opera EastEnders? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Redwater (TV series). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Redwater (TV series)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Hello, I was wondering about your recent reversion at Denning's page. The infobox as it stands after your edit and which was replaced by the IP editor is for 'musical person', which Denning never was. Before his convictions he was a radio DJ and 'infobox person' might be more appropriate. It is used for the late DJ Ed Stewart, although there is also an alternative in 'infobox presenter'. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 23:28, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I was checking the IP's edits and thought the change was unnecessary but if he's better known for his criminal record than his career than that's fine, I apologise. The IP was also trying to add the "criminal_charge" field to an actress with no criminal record. anemoneprojectors08:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
No problem, I see that another editor has changed it back to 'person' in the meantime. The musical artist box was added by an editor who added i/bx's to a large number of pages in a short space of time a few weeks back. I'd been 'going to change it' but never got around to it. Denning was very well known as a DJ before his fall. Overall 'person' is probably the most appropriate box. Thanks. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 10:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
I saw you moved members from the Beale family and now only blood relations appear, but I do think other notable relatives should be included.
I think spouses, such as Kathy Beale, Jane Beale and Stacey Fowler should be included. Take Lou Beale-when we first saw her, she was a widow, but was still Beale and always referred to herself as Beale. Kathy Beale was like that too, we knew her as Kathy Beale for 10 years on screen and her return last year was always "Kathy Beale has returned". She's better known as Kathy Beale rather than Kathy Mitchell or Sullivan. Same with Jane etc.
I also think Whitney should be noted because, despite not being a blood relation, Bianca is her adoptive mum, who is a Beale, and she was treated the same way as Liam, Tiffany and Morgan.
Hi, I did it to match the Mitchell family article and also I can kind of foresee disagreements about former spouses, because Kathy and Sonia are both divorced from the Beale family now. Also, although technically Bianca is decended from Beales, she hasn't really been a part of the Beale family (was David Wicks ever part of the Beale family?), and Whitney doesn't associate with the Beales in a family way. anemoneprojectors17:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
This image is discussed at FFD, so I invite you there. It is of Sally Brampton, a late British journalist. Although you are likely uninvolved, you are British, so I would like your opinions there. --George Ho (talk) 06:05, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey
The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.
I was hurrying to get it done, but realised I was running out of time in the early hours (when I should have been sleeping). Thank you! - JuneGloom07Talk08:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
I would like to tell you about the user's edits-they are coming across as vandalism. The user is removing siblings, like Natasha and Whitney from Liam, Tiffany and Morgan's pages. The user said the likes of Natasha, Zaair and Vivienne are miscarriages and abortions when they were stillbirths etc. and shouldn't be noted.
Yes I'm keeping an eye on them. They seem unwilling to accept consensus. If I come across anything else I think I'll warn them for edit warring.--5 albert square (talk) 12:21, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Yeah I noticed the editor earlier on and reverted some of the edits, but as they have reverted it's right to warn them for each edit after each warning. It's disruptive to the facts as well as edit warring. They seem to be denying that Bianca adopted Whitney as well. anemoneprojectors13:36, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi AP, could you move the page, User:ElectrodeandtheAnode/Casualty (series 31), into mainspace at Casualty (series 31) please. The user had asked for it to be moved via Articles for Creation rather than moving it straight to mainspace. Someone else created a page of seriously poor quality and I was hoping you could you move their work into the mainspace for me please. Thanks Soaper1234 (talk) 16:25, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
It says on your talk page that you like to do the right thing and I should let you know if you make a mistake. I'd like to say that I was trying to add additional factual information on this article and you just come along and removed it saying it is not needed. I think this is very unfair as it is perfectly true and therefore adds to the article. If people don't want to know, then they don't have to read it, but why take it away from anyone who might want to? Cexycy01:51, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
@Cexycy: Hi, the wording on the placard is not necessary as this is trivial, and not a part of Peggy's overall storyline. Dates of birth are generally not included because characters are not technically born but are created by the writers. Peggy did not exist in 1942 or in 1960 - she didn't exist until 1991. So I didn't make a mistake, I was following Wikipedia's guidelines on writing about fictional characters and not including trivia. Thanks. anemoneprojectors06:11, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
How can you say what is trivial and what is not, especially when you are talking about a fictional character to begin with? Peggy never really existed at all, yet the article gives some background information on her before she even came to the programme but you're not opposing any of that. We know characters are not really born but I cited a piece of information as well as two sources to back it up. The date of birth allows people to generally get a better feel for the character because it can be worked out how old a person was at a certain time. Basically it's just a little piece of information which does gebrally offer a little bit and does not overshadow anything else. Again if you are not interested, you can ignore it but some people will be. Cexycy (talk) 21:08, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I have to say Cexycy that I agree with AP. I must admit I don't see why we need the backstory section. I would remove it altogether from all soap opera characters. It doesn't matter when Peggy married though as it happened before she was created.--5 albert square (talk) 21:20, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, backstory sections are not needed - important backstory should be mentioned at the time it is revealed or as part of a creation or characterisation section if it is part of the character's announcement. That's why I've been removing several of them recently from various characters - I think I one of the Brannings most recently. But it can be difficult to merge the information sometimes, which is why I sometimes leave them. As for a character's age, it is generally not important, though in some cases we have given a character's age on arrival where it is sourced as part of the character's announcement. We don't need to know her age. We can see what she looks like from images and we know she's a grandmother, but her age is not actually relevant. I would consider if to be fancruft. anemoneprojectors22:08, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
To be fair, I thought the whole purpose of Wikipedia is to produce articles with facts which are supported with sources. What I provided was just that. The date of birth was stated verbally AND on the coffin placard both supporting each other with no other contradicting sources. When does creating an article stop and funcruft begin? If the storylines can be supported with sources of information to support them, then what is actually the harm? Yes such things didn't really happen but if you are going to be like that, why have anything fictional on Wikipedia? Also bear in mind that there is also a lot of interest in such things as well, a major factor in Wikipedia's existence. Cexycy (talk) 22:18, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Facts, yes. But with works of fiction, we should write about the most important aspects of a character (trivia is discouraged in all articles, not just fiction). Birth and death dates are not those aspects. The most important thing to write about characters is from a "real-world perspective", rather than "in-universe perspective". That means we should avoid just writing pages of detailed plot, but include information about the casting and creation of the character, what decisions were made in making the character such as how they dress, any storyline development, awards or critical commentary, etc. Like I said, the date of birth is not important, nor is the date of death. What is more important are the first and last episodes. We are not going to include every tiny detail we see on screen. See also Wikipedia's guide on writing about fiction. anemoneprojectors09:42, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello. Thank you for moving both of the articles into the mainspace. I had decided to use the move request templates. I did not want to bother you because I always do with move requests. Sorry about that.Rainthe 114:22, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Great work with the new EastEnders cast photographs. Just amazing. Did you tell the actors they were posing for their future Wiki infobox pictures?Rainthe 123:58, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. It was an amazing day which I plan to never forget. I did tell Lacey, but she seemed confused so I didn't tell anyone else! Sadly I can't use the photos I have of Scott Maslen, Bonnie Langford and Richard Blackwood because they were taken by other people (that's the reason I didn't want many photos of me with the cast, I knew I wouldn't hold the rights to them). I know I could have got better pictures - I met 12 of the cast before I turned the flash on my camera! And I missed getting pics of Danny Dyer, Linda Henry, Linda Marlowe, Diane Parish, Jack Derges, June Brown and Liz Sweet, and I didn't meet Matt Di Angelo, John Altman, Ben Champniss or Ulric Browne, and my photos of Lisa Hammond and Harry Reid are unposed because I didn't get the chance to ask them for photos, it was so busy. Also, Jo Joyner and Maria Friedman arrived after I'd already left. If they did another one, I would go no matter what it cost! anemoneprojectors07:12, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Oh right, that sounds really strict - the person taking the photograph on your property gives them copyright. I'd never considered that before. You instigated the creation of the cast photo but they actually created it. Anyhow, I bet it was amazing and worth the money. Every soap fans dream - but meeting Carli Norris, well jealous!!!!Rainthe 110:56, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Well I'm pretty sure they wouldn't mind, but technically the person who presses the shutter is the copyright holder. Most people won't think about that, but for me it doesn't feel quite right to release those photos. I wouldn't even know who it was to ask! I know one, that's James Bye - he took a photo of me with Jonny Labey, but then I took a photo of Jonny Labey so I don't need to use that one! Carli Norris, eh?! I found Jamie Borthwick and Scott Maslen to be more fanciable in person. But for some reason Jonny Labey is now my celebrity crush, so sad he's leaving. And that his cast cards hadn't turned up! I need to get my new collection of cast cards and autographs framed :-) anemoneprojectors11:51, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Hey. I have created a new user called User:James Nightingale. I was supposed to move my sandbox to the mainspace target of James Nightingale (Hollyoaks), which has a redirect. I incorrectly believed there was no redirect in play. I am not sure why I have become so clumsy with article move since yesterday. Can you clean up my trail of destruction?Rainthe 116:36, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
I've left all the wrong moves in the deleted history so it actually looks like you just wrote it in the mainspace. I'm just thinking, if you want to go for DYK maybe I should undelete them so the moment it was moved to mainspace is clear. anemoneprojectors19:02, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you and it was a confusing one. Perhaps restore and then I could nominate in the next couple of days.Rainthe 119:25, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Well I've done it. I was originally confused by the namespace drop down list - the first few times I moved pages for you guys after that list appeared, I ended up creating new userpages. Wikipedia do seem to have made some "improvements" lately that have made it harder to use... like changing the links to change the number of days on the watchlist to a drop down menu, meaning an extra mouse click, or making the "updated since my last visit" less obvious so I have to struggle to see how many edits have been made when I look at a page history. Oh well. anemoneprojectors22:34, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks again. I think sometimes that it would be great idea for long-term confirmed users to have some type of higher move rights that can take out redirects etc. But when you describe it like that it sounds best of left to admins as atleast you can delete and clean up if it is done wrong.Rainthe 123:29, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Could you solve the move request I made at Greg Douglas? The template never seems to attract an assisting admin anymore. At one time it would be moved within the hour.Rainthe 110:18, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, clearly Ben isn't dead. And I'm pretty sure Harry Reid hasn't left the cast, because if they're going to release spoilers of Ben's death, they would have announced his departure. If they were going to make it a surprise departure with no announcement, they'd not release spoilers! So I agree with you that it's a mistaken identity. I hope it's not Paul though. Also I noticed at the meet and greet, Jonny Labey was wearing an "artist" wristband to signify his reason for being there as he had already filmed his exit by that time. I didn't notice any current cast wearing these, including Harry Reid. EastEnders are loving playing tricks on us - they did this with Denise and it was so obvious she was alive but people were convinced she was dead, this is the same sort of thing. They played tricks with Sharon and Phil's marriage too, having them reunite at the last possibly moment (I totally saw it coming)! anemoneprojectors13:51, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
That is what I thought. They do like a surprise story like Emmerdale and Hollyoaks do too. Coronation Street on the other hand seem to reveal all their stories, like Kylie Platt. That article is receiving more attention due to the character being killed off and it really is not helping. I predict when the scenes air tomorrow night the article will be worse. Can you add semi pp that article for a little while? I think all the IP edits, without edit summaries adding in storylines with errors is just making the article unstable - which is a shame as it has GA status.Rainthe 100:39, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
I'lll semi protect it for a while. I'm actually about 3-4 weeks behind on Corrie and I don't tend to read spoilers (not because I don't want to know what happens, they just don't interest me as much as EastEnders ones!) so I don't know when Kylie's due to die, though of course I know she will. Is a week long enough? anemoneprojectors07:15, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. Perhaps we can wait and see if the problem persists following pp ending - which it probably will. I did not realise you were so far behind. I will have to remember not to leave any spoilers on your talk page again. lolRainthe 116:36, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm only behind because I don't have a TV licence anymore so I watch what I want on catch up and generally I end up watching it all close to when it's due to expire - apart from EastEnders which I watch as soon as I can! Because EE has secrets that I might see online before I watch it! But with Corrie, if I saw a big secret revealed online it wouldn't bother me as much! Also, the spoilers are all over the soap magazines anyway so even if I don't read them, the headlines are unavoidable! It was kind of annoying with Britain's Got Talent, because I had somehow managed to avoid on Twitter and Wikipedia who had won it, until a week and a half later when it was spoiled for me in a pub quiz question! :-) anemoneprojectors17:26, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Hey. An editor has moved Ashley Thomas to Ashley Michael Thomas and redirected Ashley Thomas to Bashy. There is no need as the rapper is not professionally known by their real name. Could you move Ashley Michael Thomas back? I believe it is a conflict of interest to wade in and take an article title over like this, especially since the editor of the subject, is the rapper himself.Rainthe 101:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I also had to revert all of the user's edits because he actually updated many links that were then redirecting to the other page. Both pages are on my watchlist but I'm a bit behind as I've been busy (not even watched Tuesday's EastEnders yet!) so a message here would be good at the moment, if he does something else. Page is moved :) anemoneprojectors22:00, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Okay, if it happens again I will let you know. Tut, I have watched every episode of EastEnders this week and you are supposed to be the super fan. Plus, thank you, I had not expected it done until tomorrow so it is a bonus.Rainthe 123:16, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Lol, today will be my catchup day. It doesn't really help that I recently got a job with silly hours (up at 4am on Tuesday for work, home at 3.15am on Thursday after working on Wednesday) plus I don't have a TV licence at my own place. anemoneprojectors07:47, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Could you offer semi pp for a couple of weeks for Kim Butterfield? You are probably not caught up yet, but a similar situation to Ben Mitchell with a mystery storyline but no source to support an exit as the show is keeping the outcome a secret. IPs are constantly battling and adding last appearance dates, changing tge duration and her surname.Rainthe 109:00, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Yeah sure, it's done. I'll probably always be 4-5 weeks behind on Hollyoaks now... I tend the watch the omnibus on the day it's due to expire on All4! I have a list of programmes I want to catch up on ordered by expiry date, and I'm usually close to the expiry date for everything! Apart from EastEnders, which I always watch asap! anemoneprojectors17:05, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I think Hollyoaks is back to its best with the current set of characters. So good time to be an Oaks viewer. Just hope Corrie recovers now. :)Rainthe 123:17, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Oh @Raintheone: help me! I just realised I watched the wrong omnibus last week! I managed to watch the one shown on 31 July instead of the one shown on 3 July! But it somehow all seemed to still make sense! So I've officially missed a week of episodes :( I'm going to get confused now lol anemoneprojectors10:15, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Huh? The dates you gave are four weeks apart though. Have you missed a week or a month? I can help explain then lolRainthe 112:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
lol, oh this is so off topic. I missed a week. Last week I was meant to watch the omnibus that went out on 3 July but I watched the one that went out on 31 July (Peri and Nico trapped in a cave). The one that went out on 3 July is now gone, and today I'm watching the one that went out on 10 July. But nothing from what I'm watching now feels like I've missed a week, really. anemoneprojectors12:21, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
haha, oh well usually on topic. It looks like the week that Reenie was sent back to prison for smashing a glass jug over Pete, who was found guilty at the trial, Joanne stole a job at a legal firm from James, John Paul posed as James BF as a favour to impress James' ex. Scott and John Paul argue over it, so John Paul sleeps with James again. The Donovan lot plan their salon. Nathan also learned Holly caused the crash that killed Rachel.Rainthe 112:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
I never realised Kim Butterfield was also Tansy Meadow in EastEnders until I saw the picture of Daisy Wood-Davies on that page! :-) anemoneprojectors08:13, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Oh and mission accomplished, glad you learned something new from it. To be fair she was hardly anything major in EastEnders for a bunch of scenes lolRainthe 111:34, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello again! Sorry to bother you with this, but I noticed you're a sysop, so I wonder if you wouldn't mind having a look at this move discussion. I think there is no issue in a speedy move for this, and as a couple of editors keep performing cut and paste moves on it, it might be best to get the move out of the way... --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:17, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Great, thanks. I had warned the editors involved, but it seems to be a recurring problem for one of them, looking at the warnings on their talk page... --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:29, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Yeah some people never learn. I was wondering if any of the now-deleted history needs merging, but I don't think any edits to the current page are missing as the redirects were reverted. A single line premise was added at some point but was unsourced, so I don't see any point in restoring that. anemoneprojectors08:34, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
I have just found a note that free access to FMP is no longer available. I am going to miss it most for access to the UK censuses. Do you know of any other free access to those records? Thanks and regards, Eddaido (talk) 00:34, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
@Eddaido: I don't, I'm sorry, but is it just not available because there is currently nobody on Wikipedia who is coordinating it? In which case I was just going to wait until someone took over. Or is it for another reason, such as they were going to give 50 free accounts and ended up giving over 60? anemoneprojectors10:08, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, this (Discontinued) explains better and I should have linked to it for you. I have just discovered the local library gives me access (to the Library edition, don't yet know what that means) but I have to go to one of their branches to do it. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 10:18, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
That's a shame. Thanks for linking it, and good luck with your library access. I may end up paying eventually, but will probably only do so when I have a) some spare money and b) time to research my own family tree also (I've done a fair amount a few years ago). anemoneprojectors10:26, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Your opinion on Nick and Carla's marriage
I found no source saying that the marriage was annulled but people are saying that it is. All I have is someone stating that Nick said he would annul the marriage "the next day" and I'm not sure if that is usable or not. Arjoccolenty (talk) 00:22, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
@Arjoccolenty: I guess if Nick said he would do it the next day then that's all there is to go on and we probably have to assume that's what happened. Annulment takes the same time as divorce though (so if it was said within the last few months it might not be final yet), but just has a different result, i.e. it's as if they were never married (which in theory means the marriage should be removed from the infobox, but as it's fiction I think it should be left in (but possibly marked as annulled)). anemoneprojectors08:58, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi sorry I owe you an apology, I have been putting line break and part 1/part 2 all this time and have not noticed you fixed them and your notes. I assure you it won't happen again. Thanks Kelvin 101 (talk) 23:25, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi again! I hope I haven't jumped the gun by adding the wording to the guideline, but nothing had happened in the discussion for over a week... --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:41, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello, AnemoneProjectors. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.
Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.
In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:
Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you. This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi AP, hope you're well. I'm here to ask you to review a draft hoping to reach List of Casualty characters to a featured list article, created by myself and ElectrodeandtheAnode. We have been working on the article for the past few months and have recieved some helpful feeback from JuneGloom07. I recently thought about asking for another perspective from a non-Holby article editor and being an admin as well, I thought you would be perfect for the job. If you have any spare time, could you have a look over it and see what you think? Thanks, Soaper1234 (talk) 17:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi @Soaper1234: I've had a quick look and it does look really good. I don't normally involve myself with featured stuff, but the only things I would suggest are adding references to image captions and perhaps adding alternative text to the images, though I'm not sure if either of those things are part of the FL criteria - check the MOS if you can. There are some other small grammatical things I'll just go and change myself as that's easier than listing them here! anemoneprojectors18:06, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Following a project community discussion, which was raised over the use of English translation columns on annual contest articles, and advice from the lead coordinator of The Guild of Copy Editors, who are extremely knowledgeable in regards to all editing practises and manual of style policies. A consensus decision has been reached to fully remove ALL English translations, as such content falls under the prohibition on original research, even if it seems helpful to the reader. This is because we have now to assume that every reader has access to automated translation tools that can always give them a sense of the meaning of the title in their native language; it is not Wikipedia's job to provide those tools for the reader. Which therefore means we are no longer to include an English translation column, nor are we to provide translation by any other means on contest articles.
Such information is currently in the process of being removed, and a new table formatting and layout style is being rolled out across all articles. Please view the new guidance on table layout at Wikipedia:WikiProject Eurovision/Format and Guides#Article layout. An example of the new table layout style can also be access via the collapsed section within this message. Thank you.
New table format and layout per advice from the guild of copy-editors and consensus of the project community
@JMHamo: No problem. I probably wouldn't have known about the page but I decided to put page categorisation on my watchlist and saw it was added. I did redirect at first but then realised nobody's ever going to search for Mick Carter using that name. anemoneprojectors21:42, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
To begin, I apologise for not responding more promptly. I am not a frequent Wikipedia editor but I change what I feel is aesthetically best and most appropriate to the despondency of the article. Use of the orange colour is abrupt, ominous and quite frankly sticks out like a sore thumb. Using #DACEF2 fits more with the article. The lilac shade IS different to that of the colour used for the Withdrawal of Brooks Way - yet still fits with the colour scheme and hence makes the article more cohesive, articulate, consistent and aesthetically pleasing. I urge you to keep it this way. With regards to 'Saved' - it just makes sense. The description of the colour is given above the Results Summary, by the colour key. There is no need to describe the scenario. It is already in the key. - Irin161 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irin161 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
CAN YOU TELL ME WHEN A CONSENSES WILL BE MET PLEASE. I LEFT A MESSAGE ON YOUR TALK PAGE AND IT HAS BEEN IGNORED AND DELETED. THEREFORE I WILL CONTINUE TO EDIT THE PAGE UNTIL YOU DISCUSS IT WITH ME. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irin161 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
On 31 October 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Henry Trigg (testator), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the ghost of Henry Trigg is said to roam his house searching for his remains, which were stolen from his coffin? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Henry Trigg (testator). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Henry Trigg (testator)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Steven and Cindy - Have Beale family linked in infobox?
Hi,
I was wondering if this should, and could, happen. I know reasons have been said against it, but there are the characters of Babe Smith and Elaine Peacock who aren't related by blood to the Carter's and they have Carter family noted.
Steven and Cindy have been included in storylines involving the Beale's-Lucy's murder, Jane's shooting, Ian's short cusrody battle for Cindy etc. Character pages tend to only go into details of their own storylines and pages like family pages lets you read info together without flicking back and forth between them. It was said they weren't related to the Beale's, but Peter and Lucy are Beale's and both Steven and Cindy were/are noted under the Beale family on the website. Plus, the 2 characters are more involved in Beale family storylines than the likes of David, Bianca and Lou's other children.
This probably doesn't make clear sense, but I hope you get a basic understanding,
Yes you make a very good point. We should either remove Carter family from Babe and Elaine's infoboxes (I'd support that, I didn't realise it was there) or add Beale family to Steven and Cindy. Although we include Babe in the Carter family article, she's not part of the family tree so it shouldn't be included in the infobox. However, Steven is Ian's stepson and Cindy is a sort of stepdaughter, so there might be a case. It should be discussed more widely. anemoneprojectors18:06, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins
Hello,
Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
A new user right for New Page Patrollers
Hi AnemoneProjectors.
A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.
It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.
Hi AnemoneProjectors. I noticed you've been trying to get through to the above user, but they're not listening. This user has been quite disruptive for some time now, and I was thinking about taking him to ANI a couple weeks ago, after leaving a final warning notice. Perhaps the only way he'll listen to you is if you block him for a short period of time. What do you think? Because if they're clearly ignoring your comments and proceeding ahead with their edits, then that warrants a block for disruptive editing, doesn't it? Class455 (talk)15:42, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
@Class455: Well, the thing is he did stop using his blog as a source after I said I was taking it to the spam noticeboard, so I think he may have read that message (though that could just be a coincidence and he's had no need to add it - I asked him not to a year ago and he still did it this year before I took it to the noticeboard). And the fact that he doesn't get how ref names work isn't really disruptive, and at least he is referencing his edits, so I'm reluctant to block the guy, to be honest. I just want him to respond! But actually I did just notice that he has had two accounts at the same time - Lawsj123 and Lawsj1234. And I was trying to teach him how to use ref names in 2013 as well! Maybe I will start warning him about disruptive editing until he gets the message. anemoneprojectors16:04, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Seems to be a good idea. However he was given a final warning notice in Sept. I wouldn't quite classify the multiple account as a sock as he hasn't used that since 2014. I think you should give him one warning, and if he doesn't listen, either I'll take him to ANI or he'll be blocked. Also, I've also picked up in the past that he edits logged out, and he did this to List of bus routes in London. Class455 (talk)16:28, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
I've told him that I'll start warning him next time. I'm not taking it as sockpuppetry, though I haven't checked if there was any overlap in edits. Maybe the other account should be blocked to make sure he only uses one. I saw the final warning but as it's from September I'd rather not just block him, but maybe I'll start from a level 2. anemoneprojectors16:42, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Zainab's new husband
Did Zainab's new husband ever have a name? I know it wasn't Haroon because that was the cousin that broke up with her. Just wondering.
Off-topic, I find it hard to believe that a woman in Pakistan who was divorced twice and a widow could remarry. Especially since Yusef admitted to setting her on fire for her and Masood's affair and let her believe it was their families. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arjoccolenty (talk • contribs) 04:28, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, AnemoneProjectors. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hey you, been a while right? Adult life really does suck! Think I'm going to get back in the habit of this now! Have I missed much? :-) GeorgeSorby01:12, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
@Gsorby: Mario seems to have gone - but we have some good editors around still. Not sure who else left... it's not the same as it used to be though! I wish the likes of Frickative and Gungadin were still around! Also, I'm really far behind on my watchlist! So I'm not always fixing things that I should be. anemoneprojectors15:12, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm a Celebrity
Hi, was wondering if we should use the 28-day ratings for Series 16. A table has been added but it with the 7-day ratings. MSalmon (talk) 16:43, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't normally edit I'm a Celebrity pages. However, at the moment there aren't any 28-day ratings, so all you could do is remove the table or leave it with 7-day ratings. How about leaving it in for now and updating it when 28-day ratings are out? anemoneprojectors16:50, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Well The X Factor one is different in that it has ITV on its own, ITV combined with ITV HD, and ITV combined with HD and +1, all over 28 days, but I'm a Celebrity has ITV on its own, HD on its own and +1 on its own. I just think it's easier to use the top 30s insted of the top 10s, as there's less looking! Also the weekly rank for I'm a Celebrity is only for ITV, while The X Factor is for all channels. So I'm not sure you should copy it exactly! anemoneprojectors16:57, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
@Msalmon: By the way, I realised that the entire series will be finished before any 28-day ratings are released, so you could wait until ALL the 28 day ratings are available before changing them, if you wanted. anemoneprojectors08:19, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi AnemoneProjectors, Inre to this - I'm kinda lost - What benefit is there to having this linked ?, My only reason for doing so is because it was deleted at AFD but perhaps there's something I'm missing,
Annoyingly when delinking I noticed it had delinked from List of past EastEnders characters and I was about to revert but noticed they were all like it .... Turns out i was looking at the wrong page otherwise I would've reverted myself :),
Thanks, –Davey2010Talk14:19, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi @Davey2010: I'll try to explain as I know people don't like oceans of red links, especially when an article has been deleted at AFD. In all the EastEnders character pages, we've always linked the actor's name, even if it's a red link. I find this useful because often characters are brought back and we wouldn't necessarily remember that they had appeared before if they were a minor character, and EastEnders has a habit of bringing back the same characters if they work for the police, as Bailey's character does. So when I see a minor character appearing in an upcoming episode, I check "what links here" for the actor's name, e.g. Special:WhatLinksHere/Catherine Bailey and from that, because the article is linked, even if redlinked, I see that the actress appeared in 2007 (and then I check if it was the same character). This happened recently when a character played by Gary Pillai was added to the 2016 characters list, but when I checked Special:WhatLinksHere/Gary Pillai, I saw he had appeared in 2013 and it was as the same character, so I removed him from the 2016 list. Does that make sense??? (P.S. I'm not sure what you mean about List of past EastEnders characters... but that doesn't contain red links as one day a few years ago someone came along and removed them all and though I tried to continue to link them, any red links in that page seem to be immediately removed by anonymous users who probably think red links aren't useful). anemoneprojectors15:11, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Oh I'm wrong, the past list does contain red links in its lower half, I guess whoever removed them only removed them from later additions. anemoneprojectors15:22, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Ahhh right yep that makes sense and is actually quite clever! :), See I never think of things like that - I just see it as "a useless redlink as the article wont ever be created again" however in this case it goes beyond that and has its uses, Ah right I didn't realise some were redlinked - I just looked at the top quarter and assumed they were all non-red, Ah right well thanks for kindly explaining that - I'll try infuture not to delink them from the EastEnders articles but if I do just revert I'll let you , Anyway thanks again for explaining that, –Davey2010Talk15:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Phew, I'm glad that made sense and that you can see the sense in it! I think most people see red links as useless but I see them as very useful! Quite often the also show other programmes someone might have been in, especially other soaps, which I find interesting. anemoneprojectors16:19, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Recent edits to Waltham Abbey (town) page.
Hi, Would you mind taking a look at the edit history of the Waltham Abbey page. There is a user there who seems to be obsessed with the idea that Waltham Abbey is (more or less) in London, which of course it isn't. (It is in Essex, although at the same time it is classified as being part of the London Metropolitan Area.) The user LondonDorado12 keeps changing the introductory wording to describe the location of Waltham Abbey in an eccentric way, downplaying or even omitting that it is in Essex. In addition, LondonDorado12 has been changing the 'Region' field in the infobox to say 'London' instead of 'East of England'. And finally, the London postcode E4 has been added as applying to Waltham Abbey.
I have repeatedly reverted these edits but LondonDorado12 just ignores what I say and keeps restoring his or her preferred edits. I even offered a link to a map of London postcodes, which shows that the E4 postcode reaches as far north as Sewardstone but not to Waltham Abbey. But LondonDorado12 reverted my edit again and even said that the linked map does not support my claim, when it quite clearly does.
There's one other thing, which is that a number of other registered users have made similar edits to the page in the last few months. I strongly suspect that these accounts (Silamosam, A1P2E3, Sdaa2, Davidmiles122; possibly also Dallidoman22) were all created by LondonDorado12. Dubmill (talk) 18:33, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Will do. I've reverted that latest edit. I know that Waltham Abbey is in Essex. I've been there. I even took a photo of the sign that says "WALTHAM ABBEY" that sits above the sign that says "WELCOME TO ESSEX". In fact my photo of it is here. Perhaps I'll transfer it to Commons... Looking at the users, I agree with most but Sdaa2's only edit was different. Davidmiles122 made this edit which is good but their undoing of your edit is strange especially as this user and some of the others are attempting to say that Waltham Abbey is near London before saying it's in Essex. Dallidoman22 did the same thing. I don't know if submitting an SPI would prove anything though, as they haven't edited in a while. anemoneprojectors18:53, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Your edit was reverted. Sdaa2 only made one edit, which was a mixture of stuff including the introduction of the 'Region' field filled with 'London'. The others I named have made edits pushing the same idea as LondonDorado12, sometimes even using the same wording. It seems unlikely to me that there could be multiple people who suddenly (since October) all have an interest in this matter and a firm conviction that Waltham Abbey is in London. Is it not possible to check the IP addresses of edits made using these accounts? Dubmill (talk) 19:00, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
I reverted the revert, and gave LondonDorado12 a warning about not violating the three-revert rule. However, even if it continues after 24 hours have passed, I would continue to warn or block them against edit warring. And you're right, Sdaa2 did change the region to London, which I didn't spot originally. Someone with checkuser may be able to discover if the accounts are related, but if it's too long the trail goes stale. Would you be willing to report the user at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations? anemoneprojectors19:16, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
I would be willing to. Do you think it should be reported straight away as a matter of course, or is it something to consider if and when the same activity resumes? Dubmill (talk) 08:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Fantastic stuff. And the page was also protected in case they come back. If it does happen again, I'll block on sight as they will be obviously sockpuppets. anemoneprojectors15:59, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your message about churches in Hertfordshire. Yes, of course I am pleased to let you get on with the Stevenage articles. By the way, I like your Trigg article. --Thoughtfortheday (talk) 00:20, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Question on family pages inclusion in infobox
Hey!
First off, hope you've had a good Christmas! Now, you know with female characters when they marry, for example, Sharon and Phil, we list Mitchell family page in Sharon's infobox, do we do the same for Phil? You know, link the Watts family to his?
@Grangehilllover: I hope you had a good Christmas too :-) That's a good question. I would say no because Phil isn't associated with the Watts family as a member but Sharon is associated with the Mitchell family as a member. Soap families are weird in that they are more unit-based rather than relation- or ancestry-based and it's possible for someone to leave one family and join another, so I would say Sharon has left the Watts family, and Stacey has left the Slater family as there are no more Slaters. Basically, it's normally when a surname changes. So in the article about the Watts family I would say that Sharon married Phil but I would only write about what happened during that marriage in the Mitchell family article. I would say Ronnie and Charlie Cotton is one exception, as he definintely joined the Mitchells, not the other way around. But not Ronnie and Jack. Hmm. Complicated stuff, right?! anemoneprojectors18:13, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
@Soaper1234: Would you consider the image here instead? I just think that way it's easier to give a source, as the BBC is the copyright owner and it's on their site. You could need to upload it to Wikipedia, not Commons, with a licence stating it is a promotional image, and a fair-use rationale similar to the one I added to File:Michelle Fowler (2016).jpg. Does that helpppp?? The upload process should be fairly easy, I think. anemoneprojectors23:01, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks AP! The only image I had with that image is that it isn't a promotional image, it is a screen-grab the BBC used when they didn't have a promo picture for Alica. Soaper1234 (talk) 23:11, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
You're right, it is a screen grab because she's not quite looking at the camera! But there is a promo shot because holby.tv have it. It's a fansite, so any idea where they got it from? Tineye has zero results. anemoneprojectors23:18, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) By the way @Soaper1234:, if you use the upload wizard, go with the option "some other kind of non-free work" and under "Which of these options describes this item best?" select "something else", as if you choose "is the object of discussion in an article", which is what I would have thought, it means the article has to be about the photo, not the subject of the photo :-) anemoneprojectors23:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
I know the BBC have released the photo, along with various other shots of the character, but they just don't update the website regularly enough to include it. It's quite annoying that no media reporters have used it in an article either! Thanks for the tips 5 albert square and AP too! Soaper1234 (talk) 23:27, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
@Soaper1234 and 5 albert square: according to the metadata for that image, it was released by the BBC for promotional purposes, was taken by Adrian Rogers and is owned by the BBC. There's a warning about not publishing the image, but I assume we can ignore that under the terms of fair use??? I'm sure it's happened before, people just pick an image without even seeing that. The full wording is: "WARNING: Use of this copyright image is subject to the terms of use of BBC Pictures' Digital Picture Service (BBC Pictures) as set out at www.bbcpictures.co.uk. In particular, this image may only be published by a registered User of BBC Pictures for editorial use for the purpose of publicising the relevant BBC programme, personnel or activity during the Publicity Period which ends three review weeks following the date of transmission and provided the BBC and the copyright holder in the caption are credited. For any other purpose whatsoever, including advertising and commercial, prior written approval from the copyright holder will be required." Hmmm/argh! Wondering if a different one might be better. Or just do it and forget I mentioned that? anemoneprojectors10:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
@Soaper1234: I would say use the original one you wanted to use, giving the page on holby.tv that it's found on as the source (not a direct link to the image), andsay copyright is presumed to be owned by the BBC. Now I think about it, I'm pretty sure EE have taken promo photos from fansites that aren't found elsewhere... anemoneprojectors10:51, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
@Soaper1234: What you did is fine. The licence just needed changing manually to promotional as I don't think the wizard has an option for that. I think the picture needs to be reduced in size more as well. anemoneprojectors11:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_cropped.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
